Learning Zone

Non-Conventional Theories of Consciousness

Quantum Processes

Stuart Hameroff, an
anesthetist at the University of Arizona, and Roger Penrose, a
mathematician from the University of Cambridge, have raised many of the
limitations of the conventional brain based theories above. In
particular they argue that the conventional brain based theories cannot
fully explain the observed features of 'the self'. They further argue
that there are single-celled organisms such as amoeba that, despite
lacking brain cells or brain cell connections (synapses) are able to
swim, find food, learn and multiply. Hence they suggest that there must
be a different mechanism other than the activity of brain cells and
their connections with each other that leads to a sense of self.

They propose that perhaps very small protein structures called
mictotubules that are found in all cells whether simple single celled
organisms such as amoeba (who thus do not have a separate brain) or the
most complex organisms such as humans may be what leads to conscious
awareness and thoughts - or in other words 'the self'. Furthermore they
argue that consciousness is thus not a product of direct brain cell to
cell activity, but rather the action of processes occurring in the
smallest possible level within the microtubules of brain cells- the
subatomic level - where things are even smaller than atoms.

The theory proposed by Hameroff and Penrose however still fails to
answer the fundamental question of how subjective experiences and
thought processes arise. Some have, however, also argued against their
theory by pointing out that microtubules exist in all cells throughout
the body and not just in the brain. Also there are drugs that can
damage the structure of micotubules but appear to have no effect on
consciousness.

Non-Conventional Theories of Consciousness

The history of science is full of examples of situations in which
scientists have been confronted with seemingly unsolvable problems
using the scientific principles of the time. For example when the
British scientist Maxwell first discovered electromagnetic phenomena in
the nineteenth century, electromagnetism had to be described as a
scientific entity in its own right, as it could not be explained
according to known scientific principles. It was many years later that
the first radio waves (which are electromagnetic waves) were recorded
by the German scientist Hertz and now we have a whole area of science
that is based upon them, not to mention numerous devices such as radio,
television, microwaves and infrared cameras.

Some scientists have also suggested that consciousness or the self,
too, is at present not reducible in terms of currently understood
mechanisms of brain cell activity and its true nature may only be
discovered when our science progresses further.

The limitations of all the theories mentioned above has thus led to the
suggestion that consciousness or the self may in fact be an irreducible
scientific entity in its own right, similar to many of the concepts in
physics, such as mass and gravity, which have also been irreducible
entities. The investigation into consciousness and the self has thus
been proposed to be similar to the discovery of electromagnetic
phenomena in the nineteenth century or quantum mechanics in the
twentieth century, both of which were inexplicable in terms of
previously known principles.

Some, such as David Chalmers, have argued that this new irreducible
scientific entity is a product of the brain, whereas others have argued
that it is an entirely separate entity that is not produced by the
brain.

The late Sir John Eccles, a neuroscientist who won the Nobel Prize for
medicine in 1963 for his work on brain cell connections (synapses) and
was considered by many to be one of the greatest neuroscientists of the
twentieth century, was perhaps the most distinguished scientist who
argued in favor of such a separation between mind, consciousness and
the brain. He argued that the unity of conscious experience was
provided by the mind and not by the machinery of the brain. His view
was that the mind itself played an active role in selecting and
integrating brain cell activity and molded it into a unified whole. He
considered it a mistake to think that the brain did everything and that
conscious experiences were simply a reflection of brain activities,
which he described as a common philosophical view:

'If that were so, our conscious selves would be no more than passive
spectators of the performances carried out by the neuronal machinery of
the brain. Our beliefs that we can really make decisions and that we
have some control over our actions would be nothing but illusions.'

He further argued that there was 'a combination of two things or
entities: our brains on the one hand and our conscious selves on the
other'. He thought of the brain as an 'instrument that provides the
conscious self or person with the lines of communication from and to
the external world, and it does this by receiving information through
the immense sensory system of the millions of nerve fibers that fire
impulses to the brain, where it is processed into coded patterns of
information that we read out from moment to moment in deriving all our
experiences-our perceptions, thoughts ideas and memories'.

According to Eccles,

'We as experiencing persons do not slavishly accept all that is
provided for us by our instrument, the neuronal machine of our sensory
system and the brain, we select from all that is given according to
interest and attention and we modify the actions of the brain, through
"the self" for example, by initiating some willed movement.'

Eccles' theory has been well described in his book The Self and Its
Brain. However, he acknowledged that he was still unable to explain how
the mind carried out these activities and how it interacted with a
separate brain.

Inspired through the work of his father, the late Ostad Elahi a
distinguished philosopher, jurist, and theologian - Bahram Elahi, a
well respected professor of surgery and anatomy with a distinguished
academic and clinical career has also studied the question of the
'self' for over 40 years. During his work he has applied the same rigor
of his scientific background to this subject and concluded that
although the mind and the brain are separate - unlike some of the
traditional 'dualists' views, consciousness or the self is not
immaterial. Rather, it is composed of a very subtle type of matter
that, although still undiscovered, is similar in concept to
electromagnetic waves, which are capable of carrying sound and pictures
and are governed by precise laws, axioms and theorems.

Therefore, in Elahi's view, everything to do with this entity should be
regarded as a separate undiscovered scientific discipline and studied
in the same objective manner as other scientific disciplines. He argues
that as science is a systematic and experimental method of obtaining
knowledge of a given domain of reality, then 'consciousness' or the
'self' can and should also be studied with the same objectivity. Each
scientific discipline such as chemistry, biology and physics has its
own laws, theorems and axioms, and in the same manner the science of
'the self' or the 'soul' should also be studied in the context of its
own laws, theorems and axioms. In his view, consciousness is also a
scientific entity and a type of 'matter', however it is a substance
that is too subtle to be measured using the scientific tools available
today. Therefore in his view the brain is an instrument that relays
information to and from both the internal and external world, but
'consciousness' or 'the self' is a separate subtle scientific entity
that interacts directly with it.